Wheels Magazine - 2200km road test of Golf vs Mazda 3

[Diesel_vert]

And 6 month intervals too (10,000km / 6 months) so servicing is expensive.

I'm not sure why Mazda Australia persist with this. They sell the same cars in UK with 12 month service intervals. Why the difference?

The new Mazda3 has a service interval of 10 000 km or 12 months, whichever is reached first.

For all other models, Mazda is in the process of rolling out this new service regime over the coming months.

"Wheels" really do need to be more accurate with their information. The claimed weights for the Golf 90TSI manual in Aust is 1209kg and the 103TSI is 1265kg.

That is the tare mass.

I suspect Wheels magazine are measuring the vehicle's kerb mass, which should indeed be higher than its tare mass.

[pologti18t]

I
Smaller especially in the rear.

Interesting as even Mazda says that the rear leg and headroom are no better or worse than the outgoing model and the boot space smaller.

Ok.. straight from Redbook

Tare mass 90tsi manual - 1209 kg
Tare Mazda 3 neo hatch manual - 1230 kg

Tare mass
Mazda 103TSI Highline auto - 1265kg
Mazda sp25GT hatch auto - 1285 kg

[Paul_R]

The new Mazda3 has a service interval of 10 000 km or 12 months.

That's an improvement but my wife will still be getting her car serviced twice a year with those numbers. 45,000 klms in 2 years so far. And yes still on first set of tyres.

[Mountainman]

I suspect Wheels magazine are measuring the vehicle's kerb mass, which should indeed be higher than its tare mass.

I have always wondered what is the difference between tare and kerb masses. Subaru, like most Jap manufacturers, used to quote their cars in kerb mass but then a few years ago started using both tare and kerb, The difference was always 40kg, no matter which model in their range. I always assumed it was the difference between a full and empty fuel tank as all their cars had either 60L or 64L fuel tanks, which would be about 40kg.

[Ryan_R]

Doesn't 1 litre = 1 kg, or is that dependent on what's being stored (water v fuel)?
Plus there's coolant, windscreen wiper fluid, oil, etc supposedly included in kerb weight I though. That said I think there's an ISO standard for the amount of fuel that is added (i.e. perhaps 30L regardless of tank size) when reporting kerb/wet weight.

[Diesel_vert]

That's an improvement but my wife will still be getting her car serviced twice a year with those numbers. 45,000 klms in 2 years so far. And yes still on first set of tyres.

This is a generalisation, but Japanese passenger vehicles aren't known for having long service intervals.

I have always wondered what is the difference between tare and kerb masses.

If anyone is interested, here are the official definitions as used in Australia:

TARE MASS - mass of a vehicle other than a L-group vehicle ready for service, unoccupied and unladen, with all fluid reservoirs filled to nominal capacity except for fuel, which shall be 10 litres only, and with all standard equipment and any options fitted.

KERB MASS - see 'Unladen Mass'

UNLADEN MASS - the mass of the vehicle in running order unoccupied and unladen with all fluid reservoirs filled to nominal capacity including fuel, and with all standard equipment.

Source: Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule - Definitions and Vehicle Categories) 2005

For the most authoritative source of tare mass figures, I refer to the Road Vehicle Certification System (RVCS) website. The relevant sections can be viewed by members of the public.

In any case, figures viewed in isolation mean nothing - it's the overall package that counts.

Doesn't 1 litre = 1 kg, or is that dependent on what's being stored (water v fuel)?

Water has an approximate density of 1 kg per litre at 4°C.

Unleaded petrol has a typical density of 0.75 kg per litre at 15°C.

[Mountainman]

So with 1L of petrol weighing 0.75kg and the fuel tank of a mk7 Golf being 50L and the tare mass requiring10L of petrol in the tank that leaves the weight of 40L of petrol to be added to the tare mass to get it to the kerb mass. that would be 30kg extra. It still doesn't account for the 1209kg tare mass claim for the 90TSI by VW and the 1225kg figure in the "Wheels" test - that's only 16kg difference. It really does make me wonder where they got their stats from. Their early tests of mk7 Golfs always quoted the specs from the VW Aust web site which were incorrect but at least they have now updated most of that information more accurately.

[Diesel_vert]

So with 1L of petrol weighing 0.75kg and the fuel tank of a mk7 Golf being 50L and the tare mass requiring10L of petrol in the tank that leaves the weight of 40L of petrol to be added to the tare mass to get it to the kerb mass. that would be 30kg extra. It still doesn't account for the 1209kg tare mass claim for the 90TSI by VW and the 1225kg figure in the "Wheels" test - that's only 16kg difference. It really does make me wonder where they got their stats from. Their early tests of mk7 Golfs always quoted the specs from the VW Aust web site which were incorrect but at least they have now updated most of that information more accurately.

I have to say, it's been a rather long time since I picked up a copy of Wheels magazine.

Maybe that's what the readout was on the scale? Maybe they use a different procedure or methodology? Maybe it's an calculated estimate? Maybe they pulled a number of a hat?

I suppose you could always write to them or contact them directly.

In any case, it doesn't really change anything for me - I think the new 3 and the Mk7 Golf both remain great packages overall, irrespective of their true tare or kerb mass.

[JustCruisn]

So what was the best car ?
Mazda is always going to use more fuel. The engine is over sized and under tuned to provide better reliability, but you have to service it twice as often ??

Servicing costs per KM
Golf90 $0.0658
Mazda3 Neo $0.0911
Mazda cost 38% more to service

BMW have been using Condition Based Servicing for more than 10 years now. It aims to lengthen service intervals and maximise the use of serviceable components.
By reducing the number of oil changes the "dust to dust" carbon emissions is lower, giving BMW a greener name.
So drive a beemer like a grandma and who knows how long the oil change interval will be ?


Other than the extra cost and damage to the environment it is a PITA to have to drop the car off for service, twice a year FFS. I love my VWs for this reason.

[Amalgam]

From the respective websites, servicing to and inclusive of 90000kms regardless of time and including the extras ie: brake fluid, air filters etc

Mazda3 2.0 manual $3052
90TSI manual $2634

It real puts pay to the myth that VWs are expensive to service.

But for me the 9 visits to the dealer vs 6 is the biggest factor.

The only possible advantage for the Mazda3 is that the more frequent oil changes with similar quality synthetic oils may increase the longevity of the engine.

[Amalgam]

Mazda 3 2014 Review – Car Reviews, News & Advice - CarPoint Australia